[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"
- From: David Černý <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:35:36 +0200
- Authentication-results: msg-ironport1.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- In-reply-to: <CA+nnY_FfYKmdx7hkYPnZH4dxrWGOzsXppmL81tTXqA2eYW0QMg@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAFGhNbPe7zNaH30Yv4=xx4DO9knxQf3Tab3TuYwy3U4UmZLb-Q@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
Tim Williams wrote:
> _Archaeopteryx_ had large wings, and (based on preserved position)
> what appeared to be a reversed hallux.
Really? I mean, has there been anything new since Middleton's PhD
thesis (2003, concluded that the hallux was directed anteromedially)
and Mayr et al.'s paper that described the tenth specimen of
_Archaeopteryx_ (2005, concluded that the hallux was "spread medially
and not permanently reversed")?